Keep the Door Open for All

Going back to the very first settlements, the United States has been a refuge for persons fleeing political or religious persecution. In the most basic of American traditions, the door of asylum was open to everyone, regardless of race, religion or political beliefs--from those fleeing communist oppression to the enemies of right-wing dictatorships. Alas, this tradition has been seriously undermined in recent years and could be eroded even more in a few months.

Since the Reagan Administration took office, the door has been held wide open for some refugees and virtually slammed on the fingers of others. For instance, the government has been extremely liberal in granting amnesty to alleged victims of Sandinista injustice in Nicaragua. But only a tiny fraction of refugees from Guatemala and El Salvador, seeking relief from the same sort of violence and terror, are allowed to stay. This unfortunate situation could become even worse if new regulations proposed by the Immigration and Naturalization Service go into effect on schedule the end of this year.

The Administration will do away with the current system of independent immigration judges who now hear appeals of asylum denial. The judges would be replaced by the immigration service’s own “asylum officers” who would be ruling ineffect whether the initial INS decisions in asylum cases were correct. A number of quasi-judicial safeguards now afforded to those seeking asylum would be eliminated. Hearings would be held in private.

The INS contends the proposal would streamline the system and eliminate a big backlog in cases to be heard. The secret hearings are supposed to protect the privacy of the refugee. But one immigration lawyer said “this is the single greatest attack on the rights of refugees that has taken place in this country.”

The danger, of course, is that the INS could use secret hearings to impose even stricter and more selective political tests in deciding who can stay and who cannot. Perhaps this is the immigration service’s way to get around a U.S. Supreme Court ruling earlier this year that the INS was applying too tough a standard in deciding for or against asylum.

The Administration should cancel this onerous INS regulation and retain the present system of independent immigration judges. If it will not do so, Congress should supersede the new regulation with legislation. America’s doors should be open to all who have a reasonable fear of persecution in their homelands. That not only is the law, that is basic to the very meaning of freedom in America.